I would expect that the rich and powerful eventually found a way to fix that, thus resulting in the system where it has to be both true, and in the public interest, for it to be safe to print (see the nazi hooker fest the F1 head was involved with, and resulting lawsuit).

So in fact, no change. Truth has always been a defense in libel, provided you didn’t publish something true (and defamatory) maliciously. That is, if I publish the fact that you are a convicted criminal it’s fine if there is some good reason for doing so such as in the context of you being appointed to a public post where that conviction is relevant; it’s not fine if I do it merely to blacken your name.

However, libel by maliciously telling the truth has rarely been the issue at point – most libel claims relate to dishonest or mistaken reportage. It’s the later that the “honestly held belief” defense applied to which is NOT the same on first glance as the new statutory “honest opinion” defense which sounds only like the “fair comment” defense that current exists. The first is about mistaken but honestly believed facts and the other only opinions and it sounds dangerously like the defense of honest mistaken belief about a fact is being eroded. Saying “I believe that the former Primeminster is a War Criminal” is an opinion, saying that “I have it on good authority that another former Primeminister buggered goats” is a mistaken fact (leastways I hope it’s not a actual fact).

I’ve just found and read the relevant section of the Draft Bill and indeed, it does appear that I’m correct. In which case this bill seems to make defending certain libel claims more difficult. It comes as no surprise to me that a British Government Bill does, at least in part, the opposite of what it substantially claims to do

In the case you’re discussing, the way a case would go is:

0) In all this it is on the appellant to ‘prove on the balance of probabilities’ the elements of their case. If they cannot do that there is no onus on the respondent to prove anything.

1) On the balance of probabilities the appellant would prove libel by showing that a “publication” [a technical term in this context, as are all the following words in double quotes] was “published” and was “defamatory” – that is, that it would, in the eyes of a right thinking man, lower his opinion of the appellant. That there, is the nub of how true facts can be defamatory – if the truth about you causes me to revile you it is defamatory.

Note: in English law as far as individuals are concerned you can only defame a living individual, not a dead one. We’re not going to get into goods, blasphemy or sedition which are also subjects of libel law.

2) The defense would be “justification”, that the facts reported were true. It is then on the appellant to disprove this before they can move any further or to “stipulate” to the fact being true. If so, then they can say ‘Yes, it is true but you published this purely to damage my client’, i.e. it is malicious. They then must produce EVIDENCE of this to prove their assertion, again on the balance of probabilities, balanced against evidence to the contrary produced by the respondent.

Evidence of malice might be in the publication itself, records or sworn testimony of previous bad feeling or acts of the respondent to the appellant, etc. etc.

Evidence against malice might be in the publication itself, especially the context and also the article taken as a whole. Other sources might be the absence of a motive for malice (or even the opposite), etc. etc.

If the appellant cannot produce any or enough evidence, the respondent has to prove nothing. The issue with English libel law isn’t that a respondent has to prove much, it is that there isn’t a barrier to frivolous or poor claims coming to court and in those cases the respondent has to find money or expertise to mount a defence – in many cases against a appellant with much greater resources.

Further, as we’ve seen, there’s a common belief that truth is an absolute defense to libel. It isn’t, it’s a partial defence subject to other factors. This means that poorly trained, or untrained, authors can write* something that is absolutely true but nevertheless is libelous.

A well trained writer can defame someone without libeling them. If nothing else you resort to “mere foul mouthed abuse”. So, I think Tony Blair (erstwhile British PM) is a ******* ****. Given that he is a lawyer, his wife is a lawyer and lots of his friends are lawyers I think that counts as putting my money where my mouth is. I could go further than that and, taken as a whole, this piece wouldn’t be libelous, but it would be foolish to stick my neck out too far.

* erstwhile – just using this word is proof that I used to be a British journalist. For some unknown reason
British journalists love to overuse this word.
* write – also say on radio, say on television, and other things that aren’t strictly writing.

“Truth has always been a defense in libel, provided you didn’t publish something true (and defamatory) maliciously.”

I rather thought that the problem with UK libel law was that it was you that had to prove that you had not been malicious — and that it was infernally difficult to do so.

Besides which, should it really matter if I decide to publish maliciously, if what I publish is factually true?

There are jurisdictions where this is not the case, including Switzerland and, last time I was paying attention, NSW Australia, but in the UK you cannot libel someone by telling the truth about them.

As for Max Mosley, he rightly won his case against the News of the World for invasion of privacy, and allegations of a Nazi element to the scene were found to be wholly untrue. That someone has minority sexual tastes is nobody’s business, regardless of a person’s fame.

Mosley talks about the case here:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b00yyflw/On_the_Ropes_Max_Mosley/

~George Orwell